Mialev.Superior Court of Tuolumne

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAAug 30, 2012
1:12-cv-1358-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012)

1:12-cv-1358-JLT (HC)

08-30-2012

MARTIN ROSS MIALE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE, et al, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL


(Doc. 5)

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel, citing his lack of financial resources as grounds therefore. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773, 774 (8th Cir. 1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case if "the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDG